I can do it!!

Author Archive

Obama White House trying to reverse GOP takeover of state-level government

President Barack Obama will leave behind many legacies when he steps aboard Marine One for the last time in January of 2017. Maybe the Obama legacy that was the most unforeseen when he took office in 2009 will be the fact that his administration oversaw the resurgence of the Republican Party.

Beyond facilitating the conditions that allowed Republicans to retake control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, the most devastating blow to the Democratic Party’s future political prospects has been its collapse farther down the ballot.

I wrote about this phenomenon for Townhall shortly after the 2014 elections:

Further down the ballot, Republican victories rivaled those the party enjoyed in 2010. In 2008, when Obama took office after two consecutive Democratic wave elections, his party controlled 62 of the 99 legislative chambers across America. By the end of the night on November 4, Republicans were in control of 68 of them. The GOP was in full command of both the legislatures and governor’s mansions in 23 states, compared to just seven states where Democrats maintained monopoly control of state government. Additionally, 32 lieutenant governors and 29 secretaries of state were aligned with the GOP.

As the fallout from 2014’s Republican tsunami settled, state legislators across the country began abandoning the party with which they had been allied their whole careers. In West Virginia, where Republicans captured control of the House of Delegates for the first time in 83 years, Democratic state Sen. Daniel Hall announced that he would shed his party label and join the ascendant Republican Party. His flip snatched control of an evenly split state Senate from the Mountain State’s Democratic governor and handed the GOP control of their 69th legislative chamber. A similar switch in Missouri by state Rep. Linda Black delivered the GOP a veto-proof majority, rendering the Show Me State’s Democratic governor a mere figurehead.

Pew Research Center has created a helpful chart that visualizes the 37-year implosion of the Democratic Party’s dominance over state legislatures:

legislatures

It is not merely the party’s farm team in competitive states that has been decimated, but its chance to rebound at the federal level as a result of the next round of decennial reapportionment.

“There are three elections — 2016, 2018 and 2020 — before the next round of national redistricting,” The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza observed. “If Democrats can’t use the next six years to reverse their losses of the past six years, they could see the party drawn into semi-permanent (nothing is totally permanent in politics) minority status in the House of Representatives. The Democratic National Committee has identified reversing the party’s massive losses at the state legislative level as a major priority going forward but the questions remains how much they can actually do about it.”

According to Politico, the White House and progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are formulating a plan to wrest control of state-level government out of the hands of Republicans. The report indicates that the White House is eager to create a counterweight to pro-Republican groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) might eventually become that counterweight.

“It’s an improvement, but it remains to be seen whether a progressive voice can be as loud and persuasive at the state level as ALEC,” said Minnesota State Senate President Senator Sandra Pappas, who is among the lawmakers in SiX’s delegation. She had been involved with a predecessor group to SiX that had struggled to gain traction with either national Democratic leaders or donors, and said she had been debating whether to come to Washington with SiX this week. “This is a very busy time in our legislative session and the ticket was expensive, but when I heard there was a White House briefing, it got my attention and I decided I better go for this.”

The White House briefing, set for Friday morning, is expected to include Education Secretary Arne Duncan, political director David Simas, intergovernmental affairs director Jerry Abramson and a host of Obama policy advisors including Brian Deese and James Kvaal.

A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on the briefing, but it seems intended at least in part to encourage Democratic state lawmakers, interest groups and donors around the country to rally behind SiX, which was launched late last year. It comes as the group is forging relationships with other key national liberal groups, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and also awaiting a coveted endorsement from Democracy Alliance major donor club.

This effort will not bear fruit immediately, but its importance will become clear as Democrats face the next three election cycles with a woefully deficient base of fresh talent from which to draw viable candidates to run for statewide or federal office. This move is an indication of the scale of the problem facing the Democratic Party, but it is a problem that might only become clear to the general public well after the 2016 election cycle.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/05/obama-white-house-trying-to-reverse-gop-takeover-of-state-level-government/


Some Dems giving up on trying to spin Hillary’s e-mail fiasco, mumbling “who gives a sh*t?” instead

Honestly, it may be their best remaining play. They can’t claim that private e-mail is good practice when the State Department itself is on record as saying it isn’t. They can’t claim that it’s basically as secure as government e-mail when even lefty sites are reporting that that’s wildly untrue. On the merits, in terms of national security and as evidence of the creepy lengths to which President Claire Underwood will go in the name of evading accountability, it’s a total disaster.

The only move left on this chessboard is to ignore all that and simply insist that voters won’t care regardless. That’s not untrue, but it’s revealing that this is what Team Blue has been reduced to arguing.

Clinton supporters have pushed back against the media and Republicans, waving off the stories as yet another Twitter-fueled much-ado-about-nothing that has little resonance with the typical voter beyond Washington.

“Voters do not give a sh-t about what email Hillary used,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton ally and CNN contributor. “They don’t even give a fart.”

But if regular voters aren’t paying attention, the Democratic power brokers who hold sway over the nomination process in key states — the legislators, local party chairmen and plugged-in activists — most definitely are. The questions some of them are raising are less about the specifics of the stories and more about the long-established narratives they feed: That the secretive Clintons, enabled by unquestioning loyalists, play by their own rules.

“The questions relating to Hillary are more about, are we tired of the same old thing?” asked one prominent Democratic state Senator in South Carolina who wished to remain anonymous.

Is that Begala stating a political fact? Trying to reassure Democratic establishmentarians who are already weary at the thought of another four years of scandal? Or nervously trying to reassure himself because even he isn’t sure at this point how bad this might get? There’s a small but nonzero chance, I think, that foreign hackers might capitalize on the media attention by dribbling a few purloined Hillary e-mails onto the Internet to embarrass her. Nothing too embarrassing — why waste your strongest hand now when you could play it for maximum advantage after she’s president and in a position to make concessions? — but maybe just a little something to screw with America’s head about what else might be out there. That’s the only way this becomes a real political liability for her. Hard proof that her e-mail was accessed when stories are swirling about how lax her cybersecurity was would be a gut punch to her credibility on national security.

As for the “who gives a sh*t?” approach, it’s not just Begala who’s pushing that line, of course. Watch below and you’ll find Hillary’s successor answering a question about the e-mails by sneering sarcastically that he hasn’t had time yet to pay any attention to “such an important issue.” That’s going to be the Democratic establishment’s new talking point for as long as they can maintain it: No matter what you may read in the newspaper, no matter what some hyperventilating wingnut or wild-eyed Elizabeth Warren fan tells you, sleep easy knowing that this is a nothingburger because it just is and that’s all you need to know about it. Voters won’t care. Ergo, you, voter, shouldn’t care. Got it?

Exit question via RB Pundit and Ace: As of late this afternoon, Rachel Maddow had studiously avoided the Hillary e-mail debacle in her otherwise busy Twitter account today. How come? I’d expect her to be #ReadyForWarren, not part of the Kerry/Begala “who gives a sh*t?” crowd. Maybe she’s calculating that until this story goes fully nuclear and/or Warren makes some noise about actually running, she’s better off staying on Her Majesty’s good side. Goodwill from the White House will come in handy for a major media figure if we end up with another Clinton administration after all.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/05/some-dems-now-giving-up-on-trying-to-spin-hillarys-e-mail-fiasco-mumbling-who-gives-a-sht-instead/


John Kerry: Maybe we do need to use military force to oust Assad after all

It was only just over 15 months ago that President Barack Obama’s administration embarked on a half-hearted quest to gin up support at home and abroad for a military campaign that would have made good on the president’s half-hearted “red line” for action in Syria. Unsurprisingly, neither the American people nor the citizens of allied nations were especially enthusiastic about following the reluctant American commander-in-chief into a military engagement he clearly did not want to fight.

Just days before Obama delivered a prime-time address in which he revealed his intention pursue two off ramps that allowed him to avoid punishing and containing Bashar al-Assad (Congressional authorization and a Russian-brokered deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria), Secretary of State John Kerry further undermined the administration’s position. On a diplomatic mission to London, Kerry defined the measure that would be meted out to Syria’s government for having used chemical weapons on civilians in defiance of the American president’s warnings.

“That is exactly what we are talking about doing, unbelievably small, limited kind of effort,” Kerry said when asked about the campaign the United States envisioned. He added that the military mission would be a “very limited, very targeted, short-term effort.”

You know the rest of the story. There was no intervention, the chemical weapons attacks continued, and what was a containable civil conflict in Syria spilled out into the region and has evolved into a sectarian nightmare with battlefields flaring from North Africa to the Persian Gulf.

Nearly a year and a half later, and with Assad still clinging to power and using America’s inevitable engagement in Syria to further his own interests, Kerry has resurrected the claim that military force might be necessary to remove Assad from power.

Military pressure may be needed to oust Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Saudi Arabia on Thursday.

“He’s lost any semblance of legitimacy, but we have no higher priority than disrupting and defeating Daesh and other terror networks”, he told reporters, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State group which has seized swathes of Syria and Iraq.

“Ultimately a combination of diplomacy and pressure will be needed to bring about a political transition. Military pressure particularly may be necessary given President Assad’s reluctance to negotiate seriously.”

Of course, Kerry’s pronouncement has little authority behind it. Assad knows quite well that, if there was no international mission to oust him from office in 2012-2013, there isn’t going to be one now. Moreover, the administration has made it clear that they are as or more concerned with what would follow Assad than they are with the suboptimal state of affairs associated with leaving him in his position.

The White House is not wrong to fear the day that follows Assad’s ouster. The coalition of forces that could have replaced the dictator in Damascus in 2012 might have been a relatively responsible interim government. Today, there is almost no hope that the West could midwife the development of an indigenous coalition government today. The only option forward for Syria now is for one of the parties fighting in that country’s brutal civil conflict to win it definitively and unambiguously. Only then will there be some agreement among the surviving parties on a pathway forward.

The White House had its chance to prevent a conflagration in the Middle East, and they passed on it in the name of political expediency. Today, the world is unquestionably worse off for the administration’s cowardice. Kerry may have some regrets, as he should, but regrets do serve as a substitute for a coherent policy approach.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/05/john-kerry-maybe-we-do-need-to-use-military-force-to-oust-assad-after-all/


March 4- Rudy Davis: Spokesman for Dr. Kent Hovind-On location at the trial in Florida

Dr. Kent Hovind’s spokesman Rudy Davis live on location from the federal trial in Florida

http://www.2peter3.com
http://www.freekenthovind.com

 

Rudy Davis Updates 

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/march-4-dave-hodges-and-rudy-davis/


March 3- Dr. Erica Shepherd

Sheila | February 26, 2015

February 26- Dr. Timothy Ball

Renowned Climatologist and author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science,  Dr. Tim Ball joins me on BLUE…

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/march-3-dr-erica-shepherd/


March 4- Dave Hodges and Rudy Davis

Dave Hodges from the common sense show

 

Dr. Kent Hovind’s spokesman Rudy Davis live on location from the federal trial

 

***Links and websites will all be updated later today

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/march-4-dave-hodges-and-rudy-davis/


House passes clean DHS funding bill — with more than two-thirds of Republicans voting no

The “Hastert Rule” says that a Speaker shouldn’t let any bill reach the floor unless a majority of his own caucus supports it. In the end, when the Great Executive Amnesty Sellout reached its final act, a supermajority of Boehner’s caucus opposed it. He passed the bill anyway — with all members of the minority party voting yes.

John Boehner, Democratic Speaker of the House.

It ended up 257-167. Here’s the roll, but don’t get too caught up in the 75 Republicans who voted yes. If 100 Democrats had switched their votes to no at the last second, I assume Boehner would have had little trouble replacing them with squishier members from his own side. Dozens of GOPers voted no here, no doubt, simply because their votes weren’t needed and a “nay” on authorizing executive amnesty will help them avoid primary challenges next year. There are probably 50-60 House conservatives who opposed the bill on the merits, because they’d rather endure a very limited shutdown of DHS to pressure Obama on immigration than throw in the towel now.

I already said my piece on this earlier so I won’t belabor it but lemme add two points. First, per Leon Wolf, don’t forget that not only does this remove any congressional roadblock to Obama’s amnesty, it also removes the roadblock to O’s plan to let illegals apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit retroactively, a giveaway that could be worth thousands of dollars in taxpayer money for each applicant. Second, if you think that this would have been a slam dunk with a Republican president in office, you’re kidding yourself and setting yourself up for more disappointment in 2017. For one thing, Democrats will almost certainly regain some seats in the Senate in 2016 (whether or not they reclaim a clear majority) so they’ll actually be in a better position to filibuster during the first two years of the next presidency than they are now — unless McConnell makes the filibuster go bye-bye. But even if the GOP had a filibuster-proof majority, it’s goofy to think that a Republican White House would risk alienating Latinos by undoing Obama’s executive order without having some sort of comprehensive immigration deal in Congress ready to go in its place. In that sense, executive amnesty is a lot like ObamaCare — Republicans may talk a good game about nuking each, but when push comes to shove, they’re talking about repeal and replace, not mere repeal. And the GOP’s replacement for executive amnesty will itself certainly allow for some form of legalization. The die is cast. And O knew it when he signed the order, which is why he’s not worried about a successor undoing his immigration legacy with a penstroke.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/house-passes-clean-dhs-funding-bill-with-more-than-two-thirds-of-republicans-voting-no/


House passes clean DHS funding bill — with more than two-thirds of Republicans voting no

The “Hastert Rule” says that a Speaker shouldn’t let any bill reach the floor unless a majority of his own caucus supports it. In the end, when the Great Executive Amnesty Sellout reached its final act, a supermajority of Boehner’s caucus opposed it. He passed the bill anyway — with all members of the minority party voting yes.

John Boehner, Democratic Speaker of the House.

It ended up 257-167. Here’s the roll, but don’t get too caught up in the 75 Republicans who voted yes. If 100 Democrats had switched their votes to no at the last second, I assume Boehner would have had little trouble replacing them with squishier members from his own side. Dozens of GOPers voted no here, no doubt, simply because their votes weren’t needed and a “nay” on authorizing executive amnesty will help them avoid primary challenges next year. There are probably 50-60 House conservatives who opposed the bill on the merits, because they’d rather endure a very limited shutdown of DHS to pressure Obama on immigration than throw in the towel now.

I already said my piece on this earlier so I won’t belabor it but lemme add two points. First, per Leon Wolf, don’t forget that not only does this remove any congressional roadblock to Obama’s amnesty, it also removes the roadblock to O’s plan to let illegals apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit retroactively, a giveaway that could be worth thousands of dollars in taxpayer money for each applicant. Second, if you think that this would have been a slam dunk with a Republican president in office, you’re kidding yourself and setting yourself up for more disappointment in 2017. For one thing, Democrats will almost certainly regain some seats in the Senate in 2016 (whether or not they reclaim a clear majority) so they’ll actually be in a better position to filibuster during the first two years of the next presidency than they are now — unless McConnell makes the filibuster go bye-bye. But even if the GOP had a filibuster-proof majority, it’s goofy to think that a Republican White House would risk alienating Latinos by undoing Obama’s executive order without having some sort of comprehensive immigration deal in Congress ready to go in its place. In that sense, executive amnesty is a lot like ObamaCare — Republicans may talk a good game about nuking each, but when push comes to shove, they’re talking about repeal and replace, not mere repeal. And the GOP’s replacement for executive amnesty will itself certainly allow for some form of legalization. The die is cast. And O knew it when he signed the order, which is why he’s not worried about a successor undoing his immigration legacy with a penstroke.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/house-passes-clean-dhs-funding-bill-with-more-than-two-thirds-of-republicans-voting-no/


Uh oh: Even without media hand-wringing, Democrats worry Hillary is imploding

As recently as January, the only question that interested the press with regards to Hillary Clinton’s anticipating presidential campaign was just how much of a money magnate her White House bid would become.

According to a report in The Hill, Clinton’s aides and fundraisers anticipated that a number of Democratic donors would rush to contribute to her campaign the minute it was launched. “It’s going to be like nothing you’ve seen,” one unnamed Democratic aide said. “The numbers will be astounding.”

In fact, the only concern among those in Clinton’s orbit was how they could possibly meet the expectations set by their first financial disclosure with a reasonably impressive tally in their second. That is what you might call a good problem to have.

But the good problems have all disappeared for Team Clinton. Today, she is engulfed in a series of scandals that call into question her ability to avoid major controversies that have the capacity to derail her candidacy and limit her ability to communicate her message to American voters.

The political press seems loathe to draw unfaltering conclusions about Clinton’s ability to serve as an effective campaigner, but Democrats with skin in this game are not displaying the same nonchalance.

“Many senior Democrats are angry, though not yet mad enough to publicly confront the Clintons,” National Journal’s Ron Fournier reported on Tuesday.

“This story has legs as long as the election,” said a Democrat who has worked on Capitol Hill and as a presidential campaign manager. “She will be tripping over this crap until the cows come home.”

Another presidential campaign veteran who held a Cabinet-level post in Bill Clinton’s White House fretted out loud about the fact that the former first lady is breezing toward the Democratic nomination.

“We can’t have a coronation when she’s handing Republicans an inquisition,” the Democrat said.

Fournier went on to editorialize on the nature of Clinton’s odd campaign of self-sabotage. He observed that the fracas over Clinton’s flagrant disregard for the Federal Records Act is “suspicious,” and this burgeoning scandal will only be compounded by questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation’s foreign donations that were received while the former secretary of state served as America’s chief diplomat.

Clinton’s lackadaisical approach to the 2016 campaign was already making high profile Democratic donors nervous before her nascent candidacy was buried by scandalous behavior and questions about her ethics.

In early February, Politico revealed that Clinton’s primary Super PAC, Priorities USA Action, would likely come up short of its goal to raise $1 million from 30 big-dollar donors before Clinton jumped into the race… by 20 donors. Furthermore, the infighting among Clinton allies that has jeopardized the fundraising effort has led some Democrats to question whether Clinton needs to jump into the race early in order to impose some order on competing pro-Clinton organizations. Surely, the last week of news involving Clinton’s record has only made Democrats more apprehensive about the former secretary of state’s acumen as a candidate.

The press may not have yet caught on to the anxiety overtaking the Democratic community, but it is clear that Clinton’s ability to walk into the White House is now an open question.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/uh-oh-even-without-media-hand-wringing-democrats-worry-hillary-is-imploding/


Uh oh: Even without media hand-wringing, Democrats worry Hillary is imploding

As recently as January, the only question that interested the press with regards to Hillary Clinton’s anticipating presidential campaign was just how much of a money magnate her White House bid would become.

According to a report in The Hill, Clinton’s aides and fundraisers anticipated that a number of Democratic donors would rush to contribute to her campaign the minute it was launched. “It’s going to be like nothing you’ve seen,” one unnamed Democratic aide said. “The numbers will be astounding.”

In fact, the only concern among those in Clinton’s orbit was how they could possibly meet the expectations set by their first financial disclosure with a reasonably impressive tally in their second. That is what you might call a good problem to have.

But the good problems have all disappeared for Team Clinton. Today, she is engulfed in a series of scandals that call into question her ability to avoid major controversies that have the capacity to derail her candidacy and limit her ability to communicate her message to American voters.

The political press seems loathe to draw unfaltering conclusions about Clinton’s ability to serve as an effective campaigner, but Democrats with skin in this game are not displaying the same nonchalance.

“Many senior Democrats are angry, though not yet mad enough to publicly confront the Clintons,” National Journal’s Ron Fournier reported on Tuesday.

“This story has legs as long as the election,” said a Democrat who has worked on Capitol Hill and as a presidential campaign manager. “She will be tripping over this crap until the cows come home.”

Another presidential campaign veteran who held a Cabinet-level post in Bill Clinton’s White House fretted out loud about the fact that the former first lady is breezing toward the Democratic nomination.

“We can’t have a coronation when she’s handing Republicans an inquisition,” the Democrat said.

Fournier went on to editorialize on the nature of Clinton’s odd campaign of self-sabotage. He observed that the fracas over Clinton’s flagrant disregard for the Federal Records Act is “suspicious,” and this burgeoning scandal will only be compounded by questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation’s foreign donations that were received while the former secretary of state served as America’s chief diplomat.

Clinton’s lackadaisical approach to the 2016 campaign was already making high profile Democratic donors nervous before her nascent candidacy was buried by scandalous behavior and questions about her ethics.

In early February, Politico revealed that Clinton’s primary Super PAC, Priorities USA Action, would likely come up short of its goal to raise $1 million from 30 big-dollar donors before Clinton jumped into the race… by 20 donors. Furthermore, the infighting among Clinton allies that has jeopardized the fundraising effort has led some Democrats to question whether Clinton needs to jump into the race early in order to impose some order on competing pro-Clinton organizations. Surely, the last week of news involving Clinton’s record has only made Democrats more apprehensive about the former secretary of state’s acumen as a candidate.

The press may not have yet caught on to the anxiety overtaking the Democratic community, but it is clear that Clinton’s ability to walk into the White House is now an open question.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/uh-oh-even-without-media-hand-wringing-democrats-worry-hillary-is-imploding/


O’Reilly’s Falklands coverage is what landed him his anchor job in Boston

There’s been plenty of coverage of Bill O’Reilly and the efforts of critics to tie him into the same sort of scandal which engulfed Brian Williams recently. Most of these stories center around his experiences covering the action in the Falklands War from Argentina early in his career. While some of the complaints seem to come down to technicalities (as to whether “a war is still a war” after a certain date, or defining it based on riots taking place surrounding the conflict) he was in the thick of things. There is clarification of that issue available here, as Bill never actually referred to the fighting on the islands themselves (which are largely inhabited by sheep) but to the unrest in Argentina and the ensuing violence.

In any event, we’ve seen that everyone’s record in the media is open to scrutiny. O’Reilly seems to have withstood it considerably better than Williams, and that case will only be bolstered by this latest bit of testimony. O’Reilly’s old bosses at the television station in Boston where he worked beginning in 1982 have shared their recollections, and it was actually Bill’s Falklands work that landed him the job.

Bill O’Reilly’s dramatic accounts of covering the Falklands War as a young journalist have been challenged by competitors and former colleagues, prompting questions about the Fox News host’s credibility.

But in 1982, O’Reilly’s reporting from a protest in Buenos Aires, 1,200 miles from military action on the Falkland Islands, impressed television executives in Boston enough to help him land a high-paying job at Channel 7 later that year.

“We were looking at hundreds of audition tapes, and this one stood out for precisely that episode,” said Bill Applegate, then the station’s vice president of news.

Applegate and Nick Lawler, the Channel 7 news director in 1982, said that to the best of their recollection, the audition tape they received 33 years ago included clips of O’Reilly’s Falklands coverage and that his gritty on-the-ground reporting made the Boston University graduate seem like a perfect fit for WNEV-TV (now WHDH-TV).

O’Reilly had left CBS in a huff — upset that some of his footage from the demonstration in Buenos Aires had been commandeered for a report by veteran journalist Bob Schieffer — and Applegate and Lawler jumped at the chance to hire a reporter with network experience.

Both of the executives were recent hires at the time, brought in to elevate the third-place station’s ratings. Applegate had quickly become known in local TV circles for a large sign he posted in the newsroom, which read, “This is War.” Channel 7 made the 32-year-old O’Reilly a weekday reporter and weekend anchor, giving him a two-year contract worth about $200,000 a year, according to Applegate. It was big money in the early ’80s.

There’s more at the link, but I’m not going to expand on the story all that much here. Mostly this serves as background information for those of you following the “controversy” and wishing to discuss it here. The folks who knew and worked with O’Reilly personally, both during and after his experiences in the Falklands, didn’t seem to have any qualms about the veracity and quality of his reporting or his work afterward. But the entire Brian Williams saga has opened up an era of investigation of the investigators and reporters. That’s not a bad thing. It’s always worth looking to see if we’re being fed a bill of goods. But we also shouldn’t be too quick to try to gin up a scandal unless the actual record merits it.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/oreillys-falklands-coverage-is-what-landed-him-his-anchor-job-in-boston/


O’Reilly’s Falklands coverage is what landed him his anchor job in Boston

There’s been plenty of coverage of Bill O’Reilly and the efforts of critics to tie him into the same sort of scandal which engulfed Brian Williams recently. Most of these stories center around his experiences covering the action in the Falklands War from Argentina early in his career. While some of the complaints seem to come down to technicalities (as to whether “a war is still a war” after a certain date, or defining it based on riots taking place surrounding the conflict) he was in the thick of things. There is clarification of that issue available here, as Bill never actually referred to the fighting on the islands themselves (which are largely inhabited by sheep) but to the unrest in Argentina and the ensuing violence.

In any event, we’ve seen that everyone’s record in the media is open to scrutiny. O’Reilly seems to have withstood it considerably better than Williams, and that case will only be bolstered by this latest bit of testimony. O’Reilly’s old bosses at the television station in Boston where he worked beginning in 1982 have shared their recollections, and it was actually Bill’s Falklands work that landed him the job.

Bill O’Reilly’s dramatic accounts of covering the Falklands War as a young journalist have been challenged by competitors and former colleagues, prompting questions about the Fox News host’s credibility.

But in 1982, O’Reilly’s reporting from a protest in Buenos Aires, 1,200 miles from military action on the Falkland Islands, impressed television executives in Boston enough to help him land a high-paying job at Channel 7 later that year.

“We were looking at hundreds of audition tapes, and this one stood out for precisely that episode,” said Bill Applegate, then the station’s vice president of news.

Applegate and Nick Lawler, the Channel 7 news director in 1982, said that to the best of their recollection, the audition tape they received 33 years ago included clips of O’Reilly’s Falklands coverage and that his gritty on-the-ground reporting made the Boston University graduate seem like a perfect fit for WNEV-TV (now WHDH-TV).

O’Reilly had left CBS in a huff — upset that some of his footage from the demonstration in Buenos Aires had been commandeered for a report by veteran journalist Bob Schieffer — and Applegate and Lawler jumped at the chance to hire a reporter with network experience.

Both of the executives were recent hires at the time, brought in to elevate the third-place station’s ratings. Applegate had quickly become known in local TV circles for a large sign he posted in the newsroom, which read, “This is War.” Channel 7 made the 32-year-old O’Reilly a weekday reporter and weekend anchor, giving him a two-year contract worth about $200,000 a year, according to Applegate. It was big money in the early ’80s.

There’s more at the link, but I’m not going to expand on the story all that much here. Mostly this serves as background information for those of you following the “controversy” and wishing to discuss it here. The folks who knew and worked with O’Reilly personally, both during and after his experiences in the Falklands, didn’t seem to have any qualms about the veracity and quality of his reporting or his work afterward. But the entire Brian Williams saga has opened up an era of investigation of the investigators and reporters. That’s not a bad thing. It’s always worth looking to see if we’re being fed a bill of goods. But we also shouldn’t be too quick to try to gin up a scandal unless the actual record merits it.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/03/oreillys-falklands-coverage-is-what-landed-him-his-anchor-job-in-boston/


Is the Obama Administration Anti-Israel?

Is the Obama Administration Anti-Israel?

Posted by lamarzulli on March 3, 2015

pps-small3Politics, Prophecy the Supernatural!

The current political landscape is in direct correlation to supernatural events that happened, in some cases, millennia ago. L. A. Marzulli

 


Obama bowsCommentary Analysis 

by 

L. A. Marzulli 

Live on CSPAN, Tuesday at 10:45 am ET: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Address to Joint Meeting of Congress

State Department Tweets Speech by Cleric Who Blames Unrest on Global Zionist Conspiracy

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-department-tweets-speech-by-cleric-who-blames-unrest-on-global-zionist-conspiracy/

The State Department’s counterterrorism office is facing pushback after promoting recent remarks by a Muslim cleric who blamed regional unrest in the Middle East on what he called a “conspiracy” by a “new global colonialism allied to world Zionism.”

The State Department’s official anti-terrorism Twitter account last week tweeted out remarks made by a leading Muslim cleric who, during a speech in Mecca, linked terrorism by the Islamic State (IS) to a plot by supporters of Israel around the world.

Sharia Advisors – Barack Obama’s Muslim Appointees in High Security Positions

Read more at: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/sharia-advisers-barack-obamas-muslim-appointees/#P1AVQBMLwUwfjvhp.99

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, will address our congress today about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.  I would state here that Obama is more than likely a Moslem having been raised in a Moslem environment as a child and thus, it would explain his appointment of Moslems to his administration as well as declaring that Israel should go back to the 1967 lines before any discussions with the Palestinians, about a two state solution begins.  http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/

I would also state that some folks believe the Saudi’s paid for the 2008 election and with their billions of oil revenues, put their man in the white house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws-sBVZeitI

Obama came from nowhere and we know little or nothing about him.  Many Americans—the latest being mayor Rudy Julliani— have declared Obama hates America and I would add that Obama hates Israel too.   http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/rudy-giuliani-president-obama-doesnt-love-america-115309.html

Iran poses an existential threat to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Iranian Mullah’s will use nukes to destroy the hated “little satan,” Israel.  Netanyahu has lived “in the neighborhood” of the Middle East, all of his life.  He knows what Hezbollah, HAMAS, ISIL and the Iranians want to do to the Jewish state.

Obama recently sent a team of “advisors” to Israel in order to see if they can oust Netanyahu this year as he’s up for re-election.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/01/30/reports-obama-campaign-operatives-working-against-netanyahu-in-israel-n1950319

The reason for this illegal action by our president is simple.  If the Israeli’s are foolish enough to get rid of Bibi, and elect an American puppet, the first item on the agenda will be to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians and thus divide the land.  Everyone knows this is national suicide for the Israeli’s and this is why Obama called for it.  He knows this will give Hezbollah and HAMAS the leg up they need to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth.

In closing todays post.  I’m anxious to hear what Bibi will say.  The world is teetering on the precipice of WWIII, with ISIL creating havoc throughout the Middle East. Add to this the Iranians who want nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map and will do so unless they are stopped.

Here’s what the Iranians really think about Israel….  Can there be any doubt as the their agenda?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14336#.VPXLd0KJn0c

1. “Israel’s leaders sometimes threaten Iran, but they know that if they do a damn thing, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has been calling for Israel’s destruction for many years.

José María Aznar, a former prime minister of Spain, recalled meeting Khameneiduring his time in office in Oct. 2000. “Israel, to him, was a kind of historical cancer, an anomaly, a country to be put in flames and condemned to disappear,” Aznar said. “Khamenei said very clearly that Iran must eliminate Israel and wipe it off the map.”

In a Friday sermon on Dec. 15, 2000, Khamenei declared, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini]…is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” A month later, he repeated his message. “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.”

More recently, on Nov. 20, 2013, Khamenei told an assembly of some 50,000 Basij militiamen that Israel was ready to fall. “The Zionist regime is a regime whose pillars are extremely shaky and is doomed to collapse,” he said. Israelis, he added, “should not be called humans.”

Lest there be any confusion about the meaning of Khamenei’s words, the next day, he published a photo on Twitter that appeared to show Israeli soldiers with a German shepherd attacking a Palestinian woman. The supreme leader’s statement, in plain English, was overlaid on the photo: “Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region.” In Islam, dogs are traditionally seen as impure. Adding the modifier “rabid” leaves only one interpretation about what the dog’s fate should be.

2. “The Imam [Khomeini] set long-term goals for the day the occupying Zionist regime is no longer in the region. The formula for this move must be discussed in the government.”

Hasan Rouhani, President of Iran.

3. “The Army of Iran can by itself destroy Israel.”

Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Army

Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, Deputy Chief of Staff

Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of the Basij militia

Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani, Lecturer at religious seminary in Qom

Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani, Assembly of Experts Chairman

Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Supreme Leader’s representative in the Revolutionary Guards

Ayatollah Mohammed Ali Movahedi-Kermani, Tehran’s interim Friday Imam

10. “As the Supreme Leader has stated, if the Zionists cause any problems for Iran, Haifa and Tel Aviv will be annihilated.”

Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, Senior Military Adviser to the Supreme Leader

11. “Iran has long-range missiles that can reach 1,500 kilometers….The Supreme Leader maintained that ‘every combatant Palestinian group that fights the Zionist regime will receive the support of the Iranian regime.’”

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, Member of the Presidium of the Assembly of Experts

12. “The only way to subdue the enemies is by refusing to compromise on the goals of the resistance and to remain strong; the future of criminal nations such as the Zionists will be erased from the history books.”

Hojatoleslam Mohammad Hassan Akhtari, Hizbullah Operations Liaison, Former Ambassador to Syria

13. “If once the destruction and demise of occupying Israel was an impossible and unattainable dream, today thanks to the historic and intelligent actions of Imam Khomeini, it has become possible and is actually in the process of occurring.”

Iranian Ministry of Defense statement

14. “The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.”

Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, Advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities

15. “The day is near in which the sword of resistance and Islamic Awakening will cut off the blood supply of the occupiers of the holy land of Palestine.”

Revolutionary Guards statement

16. “Every Muslim who does not want to fight Israel is violating religious law and essentially forgetting Israel’s crimes over the past 60 years on Islamic soil.”

Mohammad Dehghan, Member of the Majlis Executive Committee

17. “The only solution to the Palestine problem is the destruction of the Zionist regime….We view the wondrous resistance as the only way towards a victorious and inspiring battle against the false, illegitimate Zionist regime.”

Basij organization media outlet, Fars Province

18. “[The United States and Israel] should not make a mistake, because if they make even the smallest mistake, we will not remain silent and will annihilate Haifa and Tel Aviv.”

Esmail Kowsari, Deputy Chairman of the Majlis Foreign Policy Commission

19. “The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel!”

Ahmad Alamolhoda, Member of the Assembly of Experts

20. Iranian State Television Airs Animated Strike on Israel

An imagined Iranian missile strike on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Dimona, malls, and IDF bases.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Acceleration TV!  EPISODE #2

OTTOTN-1-2Interested? go to www.lamazulli.net!

 

 

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html

March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php

March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).

JUST ADDED!  March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque

JUST ADDED!  March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM

April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/

April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee. www.Watchersconference.com http://www.eventbrite.com/o/intersession-7639157385?s=30506575

JUST ADDED!  April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032

JUST ADDED!  May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 22-24:  Oak Ridge, Tennessee – details to come with a link to the event. 

Just Added!  September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar – L. A. Marzulli and other guests to be announced. 

Just Added! September 19th – Prophecy Conference – Details soon

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – www.freedomslight.com 

To book L. A. Marzulli please email him at la@lamarzulli.net 

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers with many different world views. Marzulli does not endorse anyones world view unless specifically noted.

About these ads

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/is-the-obama-administration-anti-israel/


March 2- Carla Butaud

Sheila | February 24, 2015

February 24-Steve Quayle

Highly acclaimed author, researcher and watchman Steve Quayle joins Sheila for an in depth analysis of his latest book,…

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/march-2-carla-butaud/


Acceleration TV! Episode #2

Acceleration TV! Episode #2

Posted by lamarzulli on March 1, 2015

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Acceleration TV!  EPISODE #2

OTTOTN-1-2Interested? go to www.lamazulli.net!

 

 

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html

March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php

March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).

JUST ADDED!  March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque

JUST ADDED!  March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM

April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/

April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee. www.Watchersconference.com http://www.eventbrite.com/o/intersession-7639157385?s=30506575

JUST ADDED!  April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032

JUST ADDED!  May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 22-24:  Oak Ridge, Tennessee – details to come with a link to the event. 

Just Added!  September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar – L. A. Marzulli and other guests to be announced. 

Just Added! September 19th – Prophecy Conference – Details soon

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – www.freedomslight.com 

To book L. A. Marzulli please email him at la@lamarzulli.net 

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers with many different world views. Marzulli does not endorse anyones world view unless specifically noted.

About these ads

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/acceleration-tv-episode-2/


Will the GOP’s 2016 field run against Boehner and McConnell?

Congress solidly in Republican hands for the first time in eight years, and no one is more frustrated by that condition than conservatives.

Late Friday, the GOP-led Congress passed a temporary spending measure to avert a “shutdown” of the Department of Homeland Security, but that does not resolve the issues surrounding a fight over Obama’s executive actions on immigration. In the House, 52 GOP members bucked leadership and voted against the bill that many saw as being tantamount to capitulation in the fight to de-fund the implementation of those orders. It passed, however, with the aid of Democratic votes.

“One senior House GOP source told Fox News that the nearly 200 Republicans who backed that bill were ‘super mad’ at those who left them hanging,” Fox reported. The impasse over Obama’s immigration measures remains, but Roll Call’s reporters recently discovered that there is an arcane parliamentary rule that could result in a clean funding bill passing both chambers and reaching the president’s desk without Republican leaders actively having to force their members to surrender. Given the tenuous nature the congressional GOP leadership’s position, caught between the immovable object of the White House and the unstoppable force of congressional conservatives, that seldom-used rule must look like an increasingly tantalizing course of action.

This is just the latest episode that is leaving conservatives to believe that Republican leadership in Congress does not have the best interests of their party’s grassroots in mind. In the last week alone, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to split the bill that would have limited funding to DHS and the GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to recommend the nomination of Loretta Lynch to the Senate have been seen as betrayals by many in the conservative movement. For some Republican 2016 hopefuls, the temptation to capitalize on that frustration is proving impossible to pass up.

On Saturday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal accused House GOP leaders of being afraid of the consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act (despite the myriad symbolic repeal bills that have passed the House, the latest one occurring as recently at February 3).

“It’s leadership and other members who, I think, are fearful of being criticized for putting anything out there that could be attacked. If not, why wouldn’t we have had a vote by now?” he told reporters at the anti-tax Club for Growth’s winter meeting. “I would hope, though, that we’re honest enough to say, we campaigned on getting rid of Obamacare.”

Jindal failed to note that Republicans in the Senate have been pressing for the interpretation of a rules governing budgetary reconciliation that would allow the upper chamber to pass a full repeal of the ACA with a simple majority vote rather than with the support of 60 Senators (requiring at least six Democratic defections). Latest week, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that such a maneuver would not be possible.

Still, as a political attack, the GOP electorate is fertile soil in which to sow dissatisfaction with their congressional leaders. According to a Fox News opinion poll conducted from January 11 to 13, only 29 percent of self-described Republicans and just 25 percent of those who identify as conservative have a favorable opinion of Speaker John Boehner. 40 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of conservatives are disinclined to express a favorable opinion of the House Speaker.

McConnell fares no better with Republicans in this survey. Only 27 percent of GOP voters and 25 percent of conservatives view the new majority leader favorably. In that poll, however, McConnell benefits from his limited name recognition among Republicans. His unfavorability ratings were relatively low (23 and 27 percent respectively), but that is due in large part to the fact that 30 percent of those surveyed in each subgroup had never heard of him while approximately another 20 percent hadn’t heard enough about him to form an opinion.

So congressional GOP leaders are relatively unpopular and attacking them amid a presidential campaign is a no-brainer, right? Well, maybe not necessarily. While Boehner may be viewed unfavorably by a plurality of Republicans, they still approve of the job he has done as Speaker. According to Gallup’s early January polling, nearly a majority – 49 percent – Republicans approve of the job Boehner has done in office. There is no comparable data available for McConnell, but it is reasonable to expect that, like Boehner, his job approval rating trends slightly higher among Republicans than do his personal likability ratings.

A campaign theme that now integrates attacks on Republican congressional leaders may generate some traction for the likely but thus far relatively uninspiring Jindal presidential campaign. Real Clear Politics’ polling average currently pegs Jindal in a three-way tie for last place along with Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Sen. Rick Santorum. But it would seem like there is a significant​ and growing constituency within the Republican Party that will react favorably to these kinds of attacks. Jindal may be the first prospective candidate to make them as the 2016 primary race heats up, but it would be surprising if he were the last.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/01/will-the-gops-2016-field-run-against-boehner-and-mcconnell/


Political reporter ponders why people hate political reporters

Frank Bruni has a media navel gazing editorial out today in the Gray Lady where he kicks around the question of why people seem to be complaining so much about campaign coverage in the national media. He cites a few examples (in what seems to be a rather sarcastic way) which include Hillary supporters claiming that she gets unfair treatment. (I’ll pause here for a moment and give everyone a chance to regain their composure.)

After mentioning that Chris Christie doesn’t think much of the press squad, Frank gets down to the issue of the day… Scott Walker.

Scott Walker thinks we’re laying an elaborate trap for him, and after The Washington Post inquired if he regarded President Obama as Christian, he not only punted but also bellowed about “gotcha” questions, griping: “This is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press.”

Dislike? Increasingly? Either he was being charitable or he hasn’t read the polling. The public’s esteem for us has been abysmal for a good long while.

And if we’re honest, we’ve brought much of it on ourselves. We play petty games and barrel down pointless roads.

There are bad habits we should surrender not merely for Lent but forever, and there are tweaks we’d be wise to implement as we move forward with the 2016 election.

With that, Bruni launches into three (!) things which he thinks the political media is getting wrong and how they can go about doing a better job. Oddly enough, he starts with a mandate to Stop hyping Iowa and New Hampshire. From a purely political theory perspective, I’d have to agree and have written about this at length. Iowa and New Hampshire punch so far above their weight class that it’s absurd. But the fact is, that’s not why people hate the mainstream press.

His second suggested reform is to Go easy on the spouses. Again, I suppose the places where this occurs are not the most shining moments for reporters, but does anyone honestly think that’s the worm at the core of this rotten apple? Tagging the spouses of candidates may not be pretty, but it’s hardly a driver of this discussion.

Finally the column gets down to what I was hoping would be the meat and potatoes of this subject… when will you stop trying to tear down any perceived GOP frontrunner in an effort to help Democrats? Sadly, we are left with a mostly empty stew bowl.

Don’t buy tickets to circus acts. When someone on the fringes of both the race and serious discourse says something clownish that’s a cry to be noticed, ignore it. This means quitting our addiction to Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, no matter how good they are for readership, ratings and belly laughs.

We are too often like the parents who attend only to the screeching 3-year-old, plying him with Gummi bears and Goldfish crackers, which simply reward and ratchet up his screams. Meanwhile the virtuous, unexcitable older sibling is ignored, until she wins the Michigan primary and leaves us no choice but a grudging, belated magazine cover.

Was that was meant to be some sort of advice to stop demanding that every GOP candidate take responsibility for each syllable uttered by anyone around the world who can be remotely tied to the party or the conservative movement? If so, it was fairly weak tea. A better way to put it would have been to say… well, essentially what I wrote in the first sentence of this paragraph. And that’s really a far cry from berating yourself for becoming distracted by the crazy people. But since he invoked the name, perhaps Frank could specifically advise his colleagues to stop trying to create mountains out of deviously spun molehills and, failing to find one of those, making things up out of whole cloth. That might actually buy back some reader trust and loyalty.

I won’t write off Bruni’s musings here entirely, though. If nothing else, we have somebody taking to the pages of the New York Times and at least acknowledging that people are disgusted with your campaign coverage. And that’s marginally better than nothing.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/01/political-reporter-ponders-why-people-hate-political-reporters/


Russian opposition leader’s murder just yards from the Kremlin is … suspicious

On Sunday, between 44,000 and 50,000 Muscovites marched in the Russian capital city to protest the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov who was shot to death on Friday in one of the most secure areas of the city.

The 55-year-old Nemtsov, a figure who represented Russia’s liberal opposition for nearly 20 years, was gunned down just yards away from the Kremlin. “The killing came just hours after a radio interview in which he called on Moscow residents to join an opposition rally on Sunday to protest Putin’s handling of the economic crisis and his ‘mad, aggressive and deadly policy of war against Ukraine,’” the Associated Press reported.

That rally was quickly canceled and replaced with today’s display of mourning. Perhaps recognizing the incendiary nature of Nemtsov’s killing, Moscow quickly granted permission to the new rally’s organizers.

Russian authorities have pledged to thoroughly investigate the incident, but few expect the pursuit of justice in this case to be fair and thorough. When Putin critics have faced premature death in a similar fashion in the past, the investigations into their deaths often serve as opportunities for authorities to impugn the character of the deceased and call into question their associations. Many expect that lamentable history to repeat itself when Nemtsov’s murder becomes the subject of investigation.

Already, Russian officials have offered a series of dubious and paranoid explanations for Nemtsov’s slaying. Of course, the leading suspect at this time is the United States.

“Officially, members of Russia’s Investigative Committee and other top authorities have abstained from specific accusations, saying only that Nemtsov could have been a “sacrificial victim for those who will stop at nothing to achieve their political aims,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. “Many Russians appear to interpret this vague blanket definition as a reference to the United States. The Kremlin has repeatedly accused Washington of organizing last year’s Euromaidan protests and government overthrow in Ukraine and seeking to do the same in Russia.”

An informal online poll by the AntiMaidan organization found that 45 percent of respondents said the United States had arranged the killing of the liberal Nemtsov in order to provoke Maidan-style protests in Russia. (The Russian opposition came in second for essentially the same reason: 23 percent of respondents suggested the opposition was willing to kill one of its own in order to ignite protests.)

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov followed suit, writing on Instagram, “there is no doubt that the murder of Nemtsov was organized by Western intelligence agencies who seek by any means to create internal conflict in Russia.”

(Nonstate media, including Novaya Gazeta, have suggested that Nemtsov was under threat from Kadyrov’s own security personnel for his repeated criticism of the Chechen leader.)

But the USA is not the only culprit believed to be behind this nefarious attack on a beloved Russian political figure. Other pro-Kremlin elements have accused Ukrainian nationalists, Islamic extremists, and even his jealous and jilted Ukrainian girlfriend of plotting to murder this man who was once a leading contender to succeed Boris Yeltsin as the Russian Federation president.

None of these explanations seemed to resonate with the tens of thousands who trudged somberly along the walls of the Kremlin on Sunday. There, many chanted “Russia without Putin” and held signs expressing their outrage with Russia’s presidential administration. Those with the most inflammatory slogans on signs were, however, carted off by police.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/01/russian-opposition-leaders-murder-just-yards-from-the-kremlin-is-suspicious/


February 27- The Global Warming War

 “The Global Warming War”

The climate change debate hits a blistering zenith in this award-winning documentary. “The Global Warming War” proposes that the scientific opinion on climate change is influenced more by politics than actual climate-science, and questions whether scientific consensus on global warming even exists. Featuring interviews from climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, authors, and political strategists. Including the founders of The Weather Channel, the co-founder of The World Rainforest Movement, and physicist, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, the documentary introduces his Cosmic Ray Theory, which he maintains plays an important role in our planet’s climate, and could be a factor that has been unaccounted for.

“thought-provoking”
-Tampa Bay Underground Film Festival

Directed by Luke Dillard
Produced by Barrett O’Donnell and Luke Dillard

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/february-27-the-global-warming-war/


Scott Walker – The Peoples Candidate? + Ron Paul & The Death of the Internet!

pps-small3Politics, Prophecy the Supernatural!

The current political landscape is in direct correlation to supernatural events that happened, in some cases, millennia ago. L. A. Marzulli

 


Commentary Analysis 

by 

L. A. Marzulli 

Scott WalkerScott Walker Is Trying to Woo CPAC. And It’s Working.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/scott-walker-is-trying-to-woo-cpac-and-it-s-working-20150226

“Here in America there is a reason we celebrate the Fourth of July and not April 15th,” Walker said. “Because in America, we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on it.”

Walker got an unexpected opportunity to flex his legendary anti-union muscles on stage when protesters interrupted his speech by shouting from the crowd.

“Those voices cannot drown out the millions of Americans who want us to stand up for the hardworking taxpayers,” Walker said to the protesters.

I love what he says in the quote above.  He gets it and he’s saying what I want to hear.  However, Washington is a good-old-boys club with layers of insulation and getting anything done there is like trying to stear an ocean liner submerged in a sea of tar!

We need to stand up to BIG GOVERNMENT and vote out of office those misguided people who want to redistribute wealth, raise our already onerous taxes, force government controlled Health Care down our throats, allow illegal aliens to have access to our system while ignoring our VETS returning from war, and try to legislate everything in our lives!  BRAVO Scott!  I like what you’re saying and can only hope you mean it.  Have the Washington Insiders already determined that Jeb Bush will be the candidate!  Talk about a rigged election.  Please not another Bush in the white house….please!

Walker has a long road ahead of him and he’s got the FEDS to deal with as well as the 17,000 Federal Employees who are snug in their cushy government jobs that pay 6 figure salaries. http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2015/02/17000-federal-employees-earned-more-200k-last-year/105903/

Obama promised us change and he is true to his word.  However the change he has brought to us is bigger government and onerous taxes.  The American people need to take a stand against what I would call soft tyranny and go back to the principles that made our country great.  17,000 government employees making more than 200k?  Really? Where is the outrage!  5 people voting to regulate the Internet…. 5 people decide our fate?  Time to push back!

Ron Paul on the death of the Internet as we know it. 

Internet, RIP?

thursday february 26, 2015

undefinedToday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

The one bright spot in this otherwise disastrous move is that federal regulations making it more difficult to use the Internet will cause more Americans to join our movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity. The federal government should keep its hands off of the Internet!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Acceleration TV!  EPISODE #1

I hope to be making one of these videos per week and posting them here on the Blog, and also on my YOUTUBE channel.

L.A. Marzulli

OTTOTN-1-2Interested? go to www.lamazulli.net!

 

 

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html

March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php

March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).

JUST ADDED!  March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque

JUST ADDED!  March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM

April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/

April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee. www.Watchersconference.com http://www.eventbrite.com/o/intersession-7639157385?s=30506575

JUST ADDED!  April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032

JUST ADDED!  May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 22-24:  Oak Ridge, Tennessee – details to come with a link to the event. 

Just Added!  September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar – L. A. Marzulli and other guests to be announced. 

Just Added! September 19th – Prophecy Conference – Details soon

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – www.freedomslight.com 

To book L. A. Marzulli please email him at la@lamarzulli.net 

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers with many different world views. Marzulli does not endorse anyones world view unless specifically noted.

 

About these ads

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/scott-walker-the-peoples-candidate-ron-paul-the-death-of-the-internet/


Internet finally fulfills its promise with global debate over what color a dress is

I’m not even kidding with that headline. This BuzzFeed post, which has been shared nearly 28 million times in 18 hours, is the apotheosis of viral content. It’s visual, not textual, it’s simple enough for a four-year-old to understand, and there’s a mystery at the heart of it guaranteed to spark ferocious debate among everyone who views it. Weirdly enough, it reminds me a little of why the Rathergate memos broke big online back in the day. That was the first time I can remember that a major political story revolved around evidence that the viewer could examine for himself right on his screen as the story unfolded in real time. You didn’t need to follow links and sit through long ideological arguments to participate in the debate. You were a co-investigator, able to judge with your own eyes how similar a modern Word document was to memos purportedly written on a typewriter 30 years earlier. The dress uproar has a whiff of that. Is it blue and black or white and gold? Are there other photos in different lighting? Will the mystery be solved? Because the central question is so simple, everyone who views the image forms an opinion instantly and is completely wedded to that opinion. No wonder Neetzan Zimmerman, a guy who knows something about viral content, called it the “viral singularity.”

At one point last night, BuzzFeed was hosting more than 670,000 users simultaneously, a population greater than Washington D.C.’s. Recognizing that they had unwittingly won the traffic equivalent of Powerball, the writing staff bought a bunch more tickets by publishing no fewer than seven follow-up posts. (Follow the links at the bottom here.) CNN.com rushed out a video about the dress photo at 3:14 a.m. ET this morning to buy some traffic-lottery tickets of its own. The paper of record was up bright and early with a story about how the photo had “melted the Internet.” Surely the august Wall Street Journal would pass, right? No — they’ve got a story up too. Of the two dozen major papers I follow on RSS, I’m reasonably sure that every one of them has at least a small item about this. That’s what kind of pageview gold rush we’re talking about here. Celebrities chimed in too:

So did quasi-celebrities. Note the number of retweets on this one:

Politicians? Of course:

I’m not even the first HA blogger today to tackle this topic:

All this — for a fairly easily explained optical illusion.

Light enters the eye through the lens—different wavelengths corresponding to different colors. The light hits the retina in the back of the eye where pigments fire up neural connections to the visual cortex, the part of the brain that processes those signals into an image. Critically, though, that first burst of light is made of whatever wavelengths are illuminating the world, reflecting off whatever you’re looking at. Without you having to worry about it, your brain figures out what color light is bouncing off the thing your eyes are looking at, and essentially subtracts that color from the “real” color of the object. “Our visual system is supposed to throw away information about the illuminant and extract information about the actual reflectance,” says Jay Neitz, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington. “But I’ve studied individual differences in color vision for 30 years, and this is one of the biggest individual differences I’ve ever seen.” (Neitz sees white-and-gold.)

Usually that system works just fine. This image, though, hits some kind of perceptual boundary. That might be because of how people are wired. Human beings evolved to see in daylight, but daylight changes color. That chromatic axis varies from the pinkish red of dawn, up through the blue-white of noontime, and then back down to reddish twilight. “What’s happening here is your visual system is looking at this thing, and you’re trying to discount the chromatic bias of the daylight axis,” says Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist who studies color and vision at Wellesley College. “So people either discount the blue side, in which case they end up seeing white and gold, or discount the gold side, in which case they end up with blue and black.” (Conway sees blue and orange, somehow.)

It all comes down to the ambient light. If you perceive the background lighting as more bluish, your brain will assume that the bluish color on the dress is actually blue light hitting a white fabric and will adjust for that. If you perceive the background lighting as more gold, you’ll see the fabric as a darker blue that appears faded because of the color of the light. I thought the dress looked blue and black from the word go and that it wasn’t a close call, but to my amazement, plenty of commenters chipped in on our Headlines thread this morning to say, “nope, looks white and gold.” Good lord. You people probably think “gif” is pronounced with a hard “G” and that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie too. Never again will I doubt American decline.

In lieu of an exit question, here’s my attempt to achieve the smartest of all global Smart Takes about the dress: It’s really a metaphor for religion, no? The atheist looks at life and sees gloomy deep blues and black. The believer looks at it and sees lovely golds and white. “What am I missing?” the atheist wonders. “Why can’t I see what they see?” Some us are just wired differently, my friends. Wired, that is, to see … the truth.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/27/internet-finally-fulfills-its-promise-with-global-debate-over-what-color-a-dress-is/


On his way out the door, Eric Holder race-baits one last time

Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder just couldn’t help himself.

With his time as the nation’s chief law enforcement official coming to a close, Holder reflected on one of his deepest regrets: Failing to deliver civil rights charges for the variety of figures embroiled in racial controversies over the course of his tenure.

When a Florida jury failed to convict George Zimmerman for his role in the death of Trayvon Martin, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division opened an investigation to determine whether Zimmerman had violated Martin’s civil rights. It was a response to the outrage displayed by those who were invested in Zimmerman’s guilt, the facts be damned. This week, the DOJ revealed that insufficient evidence existed to charge Zimmerman with civil rights violations. Holder’s response to this development, apparently, is to lament the fact that the burden of proof required to impose criminal charges on American citizens after they have been exonerated by a jury is just too high.

“I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that’s something that I am going to be talking about before I leave office,” Holder said.

It makes sense that this would be a priority for Holder. He’s written a lot of checks to Democratic base supporters regarding civil rights charges that look set to bounce. From cases that have curious outcomes that merit further investigation, like the death of Eric Garner following a confrontation with New York City police, to relatively clear-cut incidents like shooting death of the Missouri teenager Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer, Holder has pledged to review whether justice has truly been served.

“Although federal civil rights law imposes a high legal bar in these types of cases, we have resisted forming premature conclusions,” Holder said in November of last year while announcing an investigation into Officer Darren Wilson. Apparently, he’s given up on reserving judgment.

But lowering the bar for retributive justice in the United States is not the only legacy Holder hopes to secure. He is also standing by the fact that he, the nation’s most powerful law enforcement official, and Barack Obama, the President of the United States, are victims of persistent racial discrimination.

Via Politico:

In a lengthy discussion ranging from his own exposure to the civil rights movement of the ’60s to today’s controversies surrounding the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Holder also acknowledged that he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.

“There have been times when I thought that’s at least a piece of it,” Holder said, adding that “I think that the primary motivator has probably been political in nature … [but] you can’t let it deflect you from … your eyes on the prize.”

In August, when Holder was tapped by the administration to head to Ferguson to defuse some of the racially-charged tensions that erupted following Brown’s death, I noted how inappropriate it was for the White House to draft Holder into the role of racial healer. His penchant for claiming that his and the president’s conservative critics are motivated by racism should disqualify him from serving in that function.

In April, delivering a speech to the annual convention of activist/cable news host Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the U.S. Attorney General denounced the “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive” rhetoric directed at Obama by Republicans. He further suggested that racism motivated some GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives who questioned him during a committee hearing with particular vigor.

“Look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee,” Holder remarked. “Had nothing to do with me, what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

In May, Holder echoed the claims of MSNBC’s “dog whistle” detectors, who derive their job security by being able to decode the veiled racism in words like “apartment” and “golf,” when he said that subtle – nearly undetectable – racism is a greater scourge than overt discrimination. In other words, the kinds of civil rights violations which the Attorney General is empowered to prosecute are of less relevance to America’s minorities than are the coded messages which are inexplicably only decipherable for the audience these Windtalker racists supposedly trying to avoid alerting.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder said on ABC’s This Week in June when asked about Republican opposition to a Democratic administration. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”

Holder’s outlook hasn’t changed, and his legacy will be one of limited accomplishment and dubious claims to having been a victim of racial intolerance. According to Politico, the outgoing attorney general’s next chapter will be seeking out a university willing to establish “an Eric Holder Institute for Race and Justice.” It is safe to anticipate that this institute’s work will be long on race and lamentably short on justice.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/27/on-his-way-out-the-door-eric-holder-race-baits-one-last-time/


Sharon Stone sued over events in Chevron Shakedown

While there’s been a fair bit of Chevron Shakedown coverage already this year, this story has an ironic and interesting twist to it. While Chevron continues to chase down all of the people involved in attempting to pick their pockets, it seems like some of the actors involved with Ecuador and the environmentalists are falling to feeding on each other. And in this case, actors has a literal as well as a figurative meaning. Hollywood star Sharon Stone was scheduled to make a (paid) appearance in Ecuador last year to talk about the environment and generally say how bad Chevron was, etc. She was paid a significant sum of money for this “activism” but two small problems cropped up. First, she didn’t show up to do the appearance. And second, according the hosts of the event, she kept the money anyway.

A public relations firm representing the government of Ecuador sued Sharon Stone in federal court on Tuesday alleging that the actress absconded with a large speaking fee for work promoting that government’s long-running legal and political battle against oil giant Chevron.

The complaint, filed by New York-based MCSquared PR, alleges that Stone and the American Talent Bureau, a speaking agency that represented her, accepted $275,000 to attend an anti-Chevron event in Ecuador last year but failed to appear as promised.

MCSquared alleges that APB canceled Stone’s appearance at an event in Ecuador, scheduled for April 2014, but never returned the $275,000 it was paid for the event.

The firm’s agreement with Stone and APB was never put in writing, admitted MCSquared president Maria Garay in an affidavit accompanying the complaint. However, the firm “entered into an oral agreement with APB and Stone (through her agent APB) for Stone to make a three-day appearance in Ecuador from April 7-9, 2014.”

In terms of their little spat, there are obviously complicating factors. The reps for the actress say she fell ill in Brazil right before the event. They also claim that the contract for the event was never put in writing. Both of these items are certainly relevant, but they lose some heft in the argument when you fail to give back the cash.

None of this, however, is as interesting as the enlightenment gained about MCSquared, who admits to arranging for multiple celebrities to go and speak on behalf of the rain forests and against Chevron… all for a pretty hefty price tag. Mia Farrow received $188,000 and Danny Glover was paid $330,000. It’s rather odd that when you hear about these Hollywood types taking a bold stance against The Man and fighting for the health of the planet, they never seem to mention all the money they are getting, no?

This is just a Friday feel good story for you, but I’m sure the folks at Chevron are finding it all quite amusing.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/27/sharon-stone-sued-over-events-in-chevron-shakedown/


February 26- Dr. Timothy Ball

Sheila | February 24, 2015

February 24-Steve Quayle

Highly acclaimed author, researcher and watchman Steve Quayle joins Sheila for an in depth analysis of his latest book,…

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/february-26-dr-timothy-ball/


%d bloggers like this: